CXRAndy
Guru
In your opinion, but not in the opinion of parliament and the judiciary.
In a functioning democracy who do you think is supreme?
The people.
Governments can be changed, so can laws
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The people.
Governments can be changed, so can laws
monkers
Legendary Member
Attempt to get you back to some reality.
Now that I have it - you are not the law - just a hysterical sounding person.
Do you have your birth certificate? Driving licence? Passport? All just worthless bits of paper?
monkers
Legendary Member
Actually not a bad attempt at an answer. I agree, the government will soon be out, and that includes the bigots we've been having to put up with attacking our human rights.
However the GRA 2003 was made as the result of a directive from the ECtHR. They could change their mind too, i guess, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
CXRAndy
Guru
You don't need them to prove you're a male or female, that's done with biological sex
monkers
Legendary Member
Oh so that's why you strut around with your cock out. I had wondered.
icowden
Legendary Member
Which makes my mind boggle to be frank. Biological science denotes that there are people with XX and XY chromosomes. It's provable. It's not an immutable binary as there are some variants due to biology not being neat and tidy.
The evidence for an innate gender identity doesn't exist, and those that claim to have one and wish to change gender must use the tools of disfigurement and external medications to only appear more like that that they wish to be. It must be an awful position to be in, but it is undeniable that these people are not happy with the body that they were born in. That makes it a medical condition. We can try to make their lives as rich, safe and supported as possible, but until we invent methods to grow new bodies and transfer consciousness or to completely rewrite our DNA, an XX person cannot become XY.
Yet we who think this are the flat earthers?
newfhouse
pleb
Biology is just one measure of what a person is. It’s not the only tool in the box. We are conscious and social animals, not simply soft machines.
AuroraSaab
Squire
It's not a realistic comparison though. A GRC or updated birth certificate isn't worthless to the person who holds it. Neither are the other documents. They say nothing about actual reality though. A being man named on a birth certificate is not a guarantee they are the father for example.
AuroraSaab
Squire
But it's an appropriate one to use in certain circumstances. You're not a lesser person for being 50 years old not 2, but you shouldn't be in the children's ball pool. Just as age is relevant in certain situations, so is sex.
It doesn't mean that's all a person is, or that you are reducing people to biological parts, but at times it's important.
monkers
Legendary Member
It is exactly the correct comparison since you deemed bits of paper to be worthless - just other people's bits of paper if you don't like their identity it seems.
AuroraSaab
Squire
I didn't deem them worthless at all. They're quite handy to the people who own them. I said a piece of paper doesn't make you a woman or a man. It doesn't. A GRC gives some legal rights to the holder and acknowledges a person's gender identity. (I'm not getting into another repeat of what a GRC does and doesn't entitle the holder to do).
monkers
Legendary Member
Yes it does (the bolded bit) but they don't need to show it to you or anyone else to go where they wish to go. This is you saying 'I don't recognise it, I am the law and those who don't agree are deluded'.
Trans women are women, and trans men are men. That is the law and no GC is above it. As a result trans people can live their own life on their own terms, they can live and love as they like, and it's none of your business. In any case blanket bans of people remain unlawful. It is useless to pretend otherwise.
You are not the law, no more than I. We are just little cogs who are required to obey the law. The independence of the EHRC is now being questioned, Falkner is bleating about it on Twitter.
The net result is that all the while you show contempt for people, people shall be free to show their contempt for you.
Last edited:
classic33
Senior Member
If you were serious about single sex spaces/areas you'd not be saying that trans men should be accomodated in the men's areas and that men should have no problems with that.
If you weren't afraid of trans women, you'd not be picking a handful of cases. Sometimes clearly misrepresenting them to support your views. You've taken the chance, more than once to congratulate me on "finding one/another one of a handful of women", and putting them before you. The difference is I've never claimed that their behaviour is representative of the majority. You however do not want to view things that way.
If, as you say, trans women are nothing more than men with a fetish, then trans men are women by use of your argument. Yet you delight when you find a case of trans people that have them excluded from a particular activity, you fail to realise that it is all people who identity as trans who are affected.
You want trans people to be made use seperate facilities, that would mean that you want men and women using the same spaces/areas/facilities. But you're against men being allowed to use the same spaces/areas/facilities.
Which stance are you going to follow, because at present you're following two seperate arguments, whether you realise or not.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Nobody gives a toss how anybody else lives their life as long as it doesn't impinge on others. The EHRC have made it clear that GRC holders are still subject to the exemptions allowed in the Equality Act when it is legitimate and proportionate.
Only by people like you and Stonewall who dislike that it refuses to be influenced by activists.
The arguments stand or fall on their own merits. You can undermine yours by posting personal abuse if you like.
monkers
Legendary Member
Well thanks for this, you make my point about the question of the independence of the EHRC too well.
Before Faulkner there was a widely held and circulated belief among GCs that the guidance from the EHRC was incompatible with law.
The government questioned but the EHRC held firm. The government response was to replace the independently appointed chair with their own political appointment. Truss appointed Faulkner who was known to have a strong anti-trans stance.
Now let us turn to the Authentic Equity Alliance ...
https://aealliance.co.uk/
This document reflects their current position (2023).
This organisation falsely claims that the EHRC guidance was in itself unlawful being incompatible with the EqA.
They sought judicial review. The application failed. They then continue with the lie. This despite the fact that Mr Justice Henshaw went as far as to use this turn of phrase concerning the legal argument ...
In his summary, Henshaw says this ...
You can read the whole document here at source.
https://oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/...cation-of-AEA-v-EHRC-2021-EWHC-1623-Admin.pdf
It is clear that the Authentic Equity Alliance are continuing to tell the lie, that the guidance was unlawful. Justice Henshaw picked apart their nonsense argument and rejected it. The original guidance was correct in law.
Subsequently the transphobes in government were unhappy with this 'woke' judge.
Miracle of miracles, under the chair of the EHRC Faulkner revised the guidance to be a better fit with the aims of the likes of the Authentic Equity Alliance, and in the process has made it incompatible with law. The anti-woke government do not mind since they had successfully engineered it to be so.
The staff at the EHRC became enraged with this audacious meddling, correctly stating that the politically appointed Chair was pursuing an anti-trans agenda. This caused them in turn to be bullied by Faulkner and members of the board. An investigation was launched, and again the government intervened and protected Faulkner.
You should remember me saying previously that the guidance is now incompatible with the EqA. The response is that the guidance is non-statutory so it doesn't need to be compatible with law, but just reflect what the board members think., or rather what they are being told by government to say.
Let's be clear, if Mr Justice Henshaw has thrown out the original application for a judicial review on the basis of incompatibility, then the EHRC have not acted within their remit - they have overstepped their position. They may advise a court, but not overrule of overturn judgements.
Needless to say that the Authentic Equity Alliance are delighted to see the EHRC guidance changed. They continue to say that formerly the guidance from the EHRC was incompatible with law. They appear to be gloating.
Democratically this is a disgrace, but I expect nothing else from a government that is corrupt in plain sight.
The situation has developed now again. A fresh investigation is open and potentially the EHRC will lose its status. I shan't say much about it but you can read about it here ...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/28/uk-equality-watchdog-ehrc-complaint-trans-stance
Meanwhile Faulkner is over on Twitter denying her wrong-doing.
What all of the above means is that the claims of the GC groups have always been false - blanket bans are unlawful. The EqA exemptions do not provide the means for blanket bans or to prevent trans women from being able to access single sex spaces for women.
I'm afraid you've allowed yourself to be recruited to an ideology founded on lies.
This looks to be ready to blow up in the EHRC's and the government's anti-woke faces.
Last edited:
